Monday, May 23, 2016

Recently there was a discussion in a FaceBook historical society page where someone said that primary
sources were all that mattered and that secondary sources had no value
in historical research. As a historian and educator, I am appalled that
someone would say that. Both primary and secondary sources must be used
in conjunction with each other in order to develop a sound historical
interpretation.

Those of you who already have your MA in History
know that you will be writing a literature review and it involves
secondary sources (Expect to spend a long time on this at the doctorate
level). There is no way to develop and sustain a historical
interpretation without studying secondary sources. Woe to anyone who
tries that because they will be torn apart in the peer review process
should they make it that far.

Speaking of peer review, it is
worth noting that there are people who avoid peer review and oddly
enough, secondary sources as well. One only has to mention David Barton
or Thomas DiLorenzo to see two people (neither of whom hold a degree in
history) who fail to be taken seriously by historians. As a result,
these two avoid peer review at all costs. It is also interesting to note
that in most cases the people who challenge historians have no
historical training whatsoever. Yet, they seem to think they are
experts.

Here in Lauren Anderson's article on the US Intellectual History Blog
we see several myths discussed. As a historian and educator I have
experience in encountering those myths. I teach history at a community
college and use primary sources. Most of the students have no idea what
these sources are. If they are handed nothing but primary sources, they
will not learn much if anything about the subject. They have no training
in using the sources, nor do they understand the setting the sources
were written (or developed. Not all primary sources are written
documents) or the context involved in their creation.

An
experience I had in this involved Thomas Jefferson's "Fire Bell in the
Night" letter to John Holmes. I put the letter on the screen and had the
students read it. I then asked them what it meant. This was the
American History to 1865 survey course, so we were past the halfway
point of the semester. They had handled multiple primary sources and had
been taught how to use them. None of them understood that it was about
slavery. Yet, we know that Jefferson was discussing slavery in this
letter.

They vaguely understood that the document involved
Missouri. They lacked contextual understanding until I explained the
history involved and what was taking place in 1820. One student asked me
how I got slavery from the document. I went through it line by line and
explained the history involved. At the end of the lesson, they
understood what the document was about. I then pointed them to other
sourc
es, both primary and secondary, to develop a better understanding
of what was taking place then.

It was important to do that. They
needed to understand that it was not my opinion alone that determined
what the document was about, but rather the collective body of
historians over time's opinions. Also, it was important that they
understand how our interpretations of history change over time. That's
where historiography comes into play.

The lesson involving this
source was one that can be done with a lot of primary sources. However,
do not expect students to learn history from primary sources alone. They
will not. It takes a good foundation of historical learning or
analytical skill development in conjunction with historical learning to
be able to use primary sources in great numbers. Even then that
foundation requires using secondary sources. Why would anyone think
students would not need secondary sources? They do need them. They need a
good textbook for reference as well although that can take many forms.

Good instructors understand the need for developing course content from
multiple types of sources as well as understanding their role in
helping students learn history. To rely on primary sources alone is to
fail to teach students. To rely on a textbook alone will result in a
failure to engage students in developing critical thinking skills along
historical content. Primary and secondary sources are both of critical
value in the successful instruction of students.